Contexts When You Work from Home

robmcmonigal

01/15/2014 01:05

So I am in the camp that the traditional GTD contexts are not terribly useful for me, so i am not planning to set things up using @office, @calls, etc. I rarely need to make a call, my "office" is the same place where I can do my personal computing work, and so on. Give that I freelance, I'm going to be switching between personal tasks and things I get paid to do, depending on the day.

I've struggled mightily with trying to blend GTD with keeping up with things little that I tend to forget about that change over time (the really low priorities) and I keep falling down. I think part of this is not getting the context idea down properly, which throws off projects, which throws off next, and so on.

The thing I was doing on Nirvanna--small number of projects, high number of contexts--probably was the wrong way to do it. But after no word for months, I didn't want to keep paying for high levels of projects. If they had said boo, I probably wouldn't even be trying something else. But I'd rather be in an imperfect place I trust than one that's just keeping up a front.

My thinking on contexts this go is to keep it limited and use more projects for when I am moving a task along. So instead of the project holding multiple contexts, it would be reversed.

I'm thinking of using the following to start. Most of my freelance work is with a certain set of clients, so I'd give each a context, so I can easily see what I am doing with that client at any given time (including next, scheduled, waiting, etc.)

-Client Name 1
-Client Name 2
-Other Clients (for one off assignments)
etc

The number of these contexts would change over time, but I think that would give me a clear picture of what I needed, rather than just @computer, where 90% of my client tasks would be anyway.

For personal stuff (like the website I run as part of a group, cleaning up my reading lists, and so on), I figured I would give the biggest ones a context:

-Reading
-Website Name
-Hobby
etc

This would allow me to quickly sort to the thing I wanted to spend some time on.

And last, the things that tend to be typical for anyone

-Shopping
-Chores

My question is--is this too fragmented? Would it just be better to go @freelance @personal @shopping @chores, then use projects to separate out? I liked Folke's 5 things, and I'm wondering if maybe that's a wiser course.

Thoughts appreciated.

Report

• Folke  (积分：2425)01/15/2014 08:41
  1 floor

  We are all different. And that makes it difficult to give advice. But let me give you a few very personal and spontaneous reflections, that may have no relevance at all in your case:
  
  I do not like to organize my stuff by "type of work" at all. I prefer a "role based" organization, even if they can be quite similar. For example, if a client is coming to discuss a purchase of my services and I need to make the table nice and clean, would I put that under "Cleaning" (i.e. the type of work)? No. I would put it under Salesman (a role). But if I clean my office on a routine basis, or following some major incident, I would put it under Cleaner (a role), In other words, I would split it up according to "who of me" (which role) is responsible for this initiative.
  
  So, I would be wary of having contexts or projects or anything labeled "Chores", "Shopping", "Reading" etc.
  
  I like my Contexts (and/or Tags) to reflect situational requirements necessary in order to be able to do a task, e.g. I need this person, or I need to be out, or I need silence or energy etc.
  
  I like my higher hierarchical "do units" (project, goals, whatever) to be either completable "real projects" ("big tasks"), or purely role based general containers of smaller items. I like this mix. All tasks do not really belong in any real projects, and all projects do not really belong in any larger new objective, so my hierarchy would be very incomplete if I did not have the role based containers as a complement for those things that do not belong anywhere.
  
  If I were you I would split up my client work primarily in such hierarchical containers, not as contexts. Well, in fact that is how I do it myself, and it suits me.
  
  Do you do the same type of work for all your clients? Or do you have different types of roles for different clients? Do you do more work for some clients than for others? If I were you I would probably have separate folders at the appropriate level (e.g. project) for the larger clients, and more general (role based) containers for smaller jobs.
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/15/2014 09:05
  2 floor

  BTW, the roles Salesman and Cleaner are not roles that I have actually defined for myself. They were just intended as examples. My own "cleaner" role is included in my "manager" role which is also responsible for all other backoffice fundamentals such as taxes, IT etc. But I do have separate role areas for each of my different "businesses", separate ones for those that are large and long-term. Big jobs I define separate projects for, and small jobs I put as tasks within the appropriate role container.
  
  I do not use my task app as a time record or work documentation. I record time etc separately (and more neatly) for those clients that I charge hourly.
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/15/2014 17:21
  3 floor

  Thanks for this. I think I may be still be falling into the trap of over-contexting, when a project (client name) and tag (work type for client) is probably more appropriate.
  
  Given my freelance work falls into two very different types, something like this might work:
  
  @Freelance Type 1
  @Freelance Type 2
  
  Then use ClientProject as needed within the right context, and JobType as a tag, so I can see quickly what types of similar tasks I have coming up for various clients.
  
  That's extremely helpful.
  
  I had meant @cleaning to cover all my chores at home, keeping them in one place if I wanted to review. Do you think that's better served as a project with no context?
  
  The one I'm still not sure about would be personal things. I do a lot of reading, which is why I thought it might help to make that its own context, i.e, I am going to sit down and read, what are my reading options? But maybe that's a Goal (Reading) with projects (Reduce TBR on nightstand, 25 History Books, etc.)?
  
  While I like the simplicity of @out, @person, @base, etc. that you use, Folke, the problem is that right now, the overwhelming majority of what I do would fall under @base (my reading, my freelance writing, my chores, my group website, etc.) and at that point, I'm not sure the context does anything other than take time to click on the button to add it.
  
  I guess only way I'll know is to try using some contexts, see if I'm doing my tasks efficiently, and go from there. I just hate having to re-do things. :(
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/15/2014 22:15
  4 floor

  Rob,
  
  You obviously need to do whatever works for you. If you have no need for "contexts" in the sense of situational requirements (tool, energy etc) that may not be present at all times, then by no means skip it. The you can use the Context feature (and Tag feature) for other things.
  
  What I'd like to reiterate, though, or explain differently, this time round is that I think it is important to keep the right kinds of "things" in the task hierarchy. Keeping tasks within projects within goals is a hierarchy, and the main use for this hierarchy is for you to be able to review things - plan your actions target by target as it were. For example, if you have a higher-level unit (project or goal) that is called "Build new house" then that represents a desired outcome. Anything you need to do to reach that outcome belongs in it. It does not matter whether some of those tasks can be labeled bookkeping, cleaning, reading etc, If the are needed for the building of the house they belong there, because that is how you need to look at it when you review whether additional actions are necessary for getting the house built. There can well be other tasks somewhere else that also are of a bookkeeping, reading or cleaning nature, but you (at least I) do not need to ever look at such constellations of tasks. I cannot see any reason why I would ever look at all my reading tasks all in one go? Read the instruction manual for my new microwave? Read a funny novel? Read a draft contract from a potential partner? They have nothing essential in common, as I see it. The same goes for chores. Yeah, life is full of simple, boring stuff, but each piece serves a different purpose. Organize by purpose/outcome, is my advice.
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/15/2014 23:16
  5 floor

  Hmm, I hadn't thought about the idea of hierarchy in this.
  
  So perhaps something like this for contexts
  
  @person <--needs other person to complete
  @out <--must be done outside home
  @physical <--needs physical activity at home (scrub floor, etc.)
  @work <--anything I'm getting paid for at computer
  @notwork <--things of a personal nature at computer
  @offline <--things of a personal nature not at computer
  
  That would give me a bit more separation on all the things I do at home, since something that's physical requires a different sort of "context" (i.e. don't be lazy, clean up!) from an offline task (write Gram a thank you note). It also gives a quick work sort vs not-work sort on electronic items.
  
  Then goal could be "Cut down on TBR pile" with a project of "Read all books on nightstand" "Read those damned articles you saved in Evernote months ago", etc. with appropriate reading tags "nightstand" "evernote" to help review as needed.
  
  Clients would be projects with no goal, I would think.
  
  I really appreciate this, because I think I was about to go down another rabbit hole in terms of set-up and end up with a lot of actions (Good, that's the point) but not a good way to easily review them (my continual struggle, at Nirvana and elsewhere.) With a goal of easier review (since I want DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING in as an action or potential action), do you think I am on right track?
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/15/2014 23:31
  7 floor

  Okay, that's weird. Says Folke replied at 18:22, but won't show me the reply! ARGH.
  
  (Then again, the Windows client has crashed 3 times on me today, so it's not the best day for Doit and me. :(
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/15/2014 23:44
  8 floor

  Rob,
  
  Why no Goal? Doit's Goals are simply a level ABOVE Projects - like "folders" for projects, if you will. I would advise you to at least have two "Goals" (GTD area groups) called Work and Private, to separate your projects better.
  
  Of the six contexts you mentioned I can easily interpret four as relating to some real true contexts, but work and notwork are not contexts in that sense. These are roles or purposes etc. I suggest you make those kinds of distinctions in the task hierarchy instead (e.g. different "Goals", or prefix your projects if for some reason you do not want to become dependent on goals - all apps do not have them.)
  
  I still do not see the big deal is about "reading" :-) Why would you need a special goal or project or anything for that? Is schoolbooks for some exam? Then write "Take XX diploma" and have all related reading and other tasks there. If it is a GTD book or some such, then maybe you have a "phony project" (a "permanent AoR container") for personal development etc where you could put it? Why would you gather these different reading tasks in one single organizational unit? You could have a context called @Bed for tasks that you do best in bed. Or a context called @Quiet, if that is what it takes to read a book, or even a context called @Reading (really meaning SUITABLE for reading), i.e. quiet, comfortable, pleasant temperature, good light etc.
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/16/2014 00:03
  9 floor

  I guess my thinking was to have the work-personal hierarchy at the highest level, but I can also see why not to do that.
  
  re: Goals--I guess I was holding the term too literally. Thinking goal = something with a definite end point. In this case, if I am understanding correctly, you are suggesting just using it as a sorting tool.
  
  re: Reading--I probably read more than anything else. I have so many different ways that I read things (online, via devices, print stuff, websites, my stored evernotes, etc.), that when I don't keep good track, something falls behind and I find myself going "Why didn't I read this yet?" I realize this is a unique and personal thing. So my thought was to pull it out to a goal level with a project for each type of reading so I could easily 1) Set priority to a few of each every week and 2) Look to see if I'm hitting all the types of reading I want to be doing weekly. Make more sense now?
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/16/2014 00:43
  10 floor

  Rob,
  
  re Goals.
  
  1) In a purely techno-pragmatic sense, Doit's Goals are just containers for projects, and there is no technical restriction to what meaning you attach to these folders.
  
  2) Many people like some kind of "area" or "workspace" separation. That would be one of the more popular uses of the Goal feature, I suppose - to separate stuff into a Home and a Work "area"
  
  3) The more literal meaning of the word goal is probably exactly what you described - something you want to attain, whatever that might be, huge or tiny.
  
  4) In GTD a goal is more like a "super-project" (even above areas of responsibility), something big that will take considerable time to attain and which may contain multiple projects and which may typically even make you have to revise your previously defined areas of responsibility.
  
  Also, GTD recommends that you list and treat your AoRs in related groups, such as Home and Work, but does not define a level ("horizon") for the group as a whole (but each single AoR is at the 20 k level, so the group of related AoRs obviously cannot be lower, but it is not defined. Regular projects are 10 k and goals are 30 k)
  
  Personally I use both the Project and Goal level for both types of purposes - as completable outcomes, if there is one, or as just a responsibility area if it is an isolated action or project. I have all my tasks in this hierarchy.
  
  re Reading. No further comment. I don't buy the explanation, but if it works for you then I am glad ;-)
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/16/2014 01:26
  11 floor

  Hmm, one last try when it comes to the reading bit :-)
  
  I also read often. And I eat often. What meals or books etc do I make a note of in my lists? And where exactly do I put them?
  
  If it is a book about taxes or bookkeeping that I think I must read to be able to run my business properly, I will put it in an AoR (Project) called Manager (or \ B-MGR to be specific). This project sits under the "AoR group" (Goal) called Work (or \\ Business to be specific).
  
  If it is a book that I feel that have a duty to read as a courtesy to my wife's boss who warmly recommended it to me I will put it in an AoR (Project) called "Family Ambassador" (\ P-AMB), which sits under the "AoR group" (Goal) called Personal (\\ Personal).
  
  If it is something that I must read as a part of one of my defined real client projects I will put it under that Project, which has a specific name, and typically sits under the the "AoR group (Goal) called Wok , or under one of my two additional venture goals (Goal) for special business development.
  
  Etc. But if it is just a regular book or articles that I might just read if or when I have the inclination I would not even list them. I only list the most promising ones that I really do not want to forget exist, and in those cases I place them as I just described - I would make a note of them in the AoR or project where they belong.
  
  The same with eating. I will make notes of eating appointments (in my calendar) and of tasks like "Buy food" etc (list), but I would not list every single meal I plan to eat.
  
  Hope that helps. But you are not me, and I am not you; I realize that we all have different needs and wishes :-)
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/16/2014 01:47
  12 floor

  I completely understand where you are coming from, and ordinarily I would agree. I think in this case, it's more of a goal of "get out from under this problem" for me, which isn't the case for you. :)
  
  From my perspective, the thinking is this:
  
  If I have a goal (30K look) of needing to get my unread materials under control, then I should set up projects (10K) to do this, even if it seems a little weird to do, looking from the outside.
  
  Also, Windows client has now crashed for 5th time today. :(
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/16/2014 08:42
  13 floor

  Rob, I understand. One question then could be: Why do you need to get your unread material under control in the first place? Can't you just throw it away? Let go of control? Why would it be a big goal for you in life to read a whole bunch of random stuff just because you have once collected it? Even if you had some good intention at the time you collected it? We all buy and collect all kinds of stuff, and sometimes we must clean house, not make a mausoleum of our past mistakes.
  
  But if you do want to keep doing this, if you see it as a responsibility to yourself or someone go through all that written material and organize it or its contents etc. then that could probably be seen as an AoR, for example Librarian. The Librarian in you would be responsible for keeping track of what gets read and take initiatives to ensure that even unnecessary stuff gets at least browsed and organized etc. And all your other AoRs (e.g. Programmer, Website Host, Manager etc.) read only whatever they NEED to read to get their job done (and can "report" what they have read to the Librarian for cataloging or statistical purposes.).
  
  How's that? :-)
  Report
• robmcmonigal  (积分：505)01/16/2014 23:10
  14 floor

  Well, the truth is that I am always weeding things out. The idea here would be to make sure I'm making time to read the things I do want to keep reading, by getting them into my focus. One of the problems I have is getting distracted off things I meant to do but didn't--the point of trying to work on GTD in the first place.
  
  
  
  
  Report
• Ryanwyu  (积分：280)01/27/2014 08:14
  15 floor

  I am an office man woking on Software Engineering. I am managing a team around 30 people. I am always looking for a better way to manage my goals and tasks well leveraging the context, goals and project structure. All above are very good samples how to manage them. I am just trying to share one way of mine which just come out these days.
  
  From my perspective, the GTD principle is to complete tasks to approach my goals. Doit has provide Goals, Projects and Taks to organize the things to do. Since it is actually time mangement, the context can be used to indicate the combination of your time and the place to seperate your time usability.
  
  For example, I established following contexts:
  @Office work: which means all related works done in my office time like planning, review, communication, mails and phones and etc. All these tasks can also bind with Goals, Projects, or being time based, or even nothing. The context will only indicate where and when to happen.
  
  The other contexts similiarily:
  @Homework Time: I will reserve the between the dinner and bed time to do some personal development like reading, studying.
  @Stores&Shopping: it will include any purchases like buy some family stuffs, food and drinks, shopping and workstuffs.
  @Business Outing: Any activities happen outside the office, or even out to other cities for business purpose.
  @Personal Business: Anything related with family life like registration, house keeping, maintenance and services, health and medicine. This activities need much time with all kinds of vendors and agents in anytime.
  @Weekend: Some resorts or refreshment activities to be done on weekends only.
  @Vacation&Trips: All trips with family, colleagues or alone, or just goto see parents in other city
  @Social Activity: Any activities related with friends, classmates in school, business parteners, clients and come communities either for business or for life.
  
  These are all my context to organize the important tasks. Some other routine activities like workout, lunch, traffic communication, readings should be done everyday any available time should be done regularly which need not context.
  
  Any suggestion appreciated!
  Report
• Folke  (积分：2425)01/27/2014 11:18
  16 floor

  @Ryanwu
  
  It is very difficult to say anything for sure about this, because it depends in how you actually use these contexts. You are probably OK with that. Let me start from another angle:
  
  On the one hand there are the GTD "contexts", in other words REQUIREMENTS for you do be able to do the task. For example, for one task you need to have your family around you and you need to be wearing sports clothes. For another task, you need to be downtown with a suit and tie and a laptop. Etc.
  
  On the other hand there are the GTD Areas of Responsibility or "roles" (or perspectives or purposes) that you play. Maybe you have defined some of your private roles as "Family Ambassador", "Material Assets Manager" and "Coach". Etc.
  
  it seems to me as if you are maybe trying to use the Context feature for both purposes? For example, let's say you need to go (alone) to the travel agent and pick up the tickets for your family's vacation. Would you put that under @Vacation&Trips (because it is in this area of responsibility) or would you put it under @Stores&Shopping (because you need to be in the physical context of the travel agent's shop)?
  
  Personally I try to keep Contexts and Areas independent of each other, using Projects and Goals (and ideally also Tags, one day) to help me structure things by Area, and using Context for the main types of "situational requirements":
  http://help.doit.im/group/topic/60
  http://help.doit.im/group/topic/92
  http://help.doit.im/group/topic/23#comment-25
  
  Report
• Ryanwyu  (积分：280)01/28/2014 06:33
  17 floor

  @Folke
  
  Thanks for replying!
  
  I guess I am more based on the first hand: "context". For the example about the travel agent, I will do it the following way:
  
  If I plan to travel to Thailand from China, I need to make some work to find the best service agent, and the register online or offline and then I will start my travel. For this trip, I may have three kind of tasks.
  
  The first one: online work for planning. Those include navigate online for the services and prices, and even anything about the cities I will go. Those can be done in office, so I will put them in @Office context.
  
  When I choose one agent for our travel, I need go to the agent office for the contract or others, those can be put into @Personal-Business, which I need go out office. If I need to buy some stuffs I will use for this trip, I plan them @Store&Shoping.
  
  The last tasks may be done during my trip, then, I will put them @Vacation&Trips. Although these are shopping, visiting a place, visiting a friend or anything else.
  
  But as all these tasks are about this one trip, I will create a project named "Trip to Thailand 2014" so I can review them altogether.
  
  That's the way I manage tasks with context. It may not imply the role concept. But I totally agree with your opnion to seperate Context and Areas indepentently. I may try it later how to use Area of Responsibility in Doit.
  Report

Only the group member can speak, Join